states that therefore, the acquisition proceedings have become final and the ownership of the suit land vests with the Government. He states that late Sh. Jaswant Singh was never in physical possession of the suit land and on this finding, the Reference Court had awarded 40% share of the compensation to Sh. Jaswant Singh towards his ownership rights. He states that the Reference Court determined that the physical possession of the said land vested in pattedar Sh. Manmohan Lal. He states that therefore, the plaintiff herein has no locus standi to prefer the suit in respect of the suit land and the question of law no. 1 in the facts of this case has to be answered against the plaintiff. 12.1. He states that with respect to question of law no. 2, as per the record of the Land Acquisition Collector, the physical possession of the suit land did not rest with Sh. Jaswant Singh and therefore, there was no occasion for late Smt. Mohro Devi to possess the same or handover its management to the defendant no. 1 as her Pairokar . He states, secondly, admittedly no document in writing between late Smt. Mohro Devi and defendant no. 1 or with the plaintiff for creation of the alleged management rights has been placed on record. He states that a perusal of the testimony of the plaintiff, who examined himself as PW-7 would show that there is no documentary evidence to prove the said self-serving statement. He states that the concurrent finding of the Courts below on this aspect, being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered in second appeal. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Others .1
